32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[bodecea]

"Marriage is a fundamental right"

It's just a tag, a continuance of the natural order of procreation and nature. Queers can't procreate, therefore their trying to equate themselves with pairings that do, is sick, it's mental illness. "Marriage" transcends vapid human attempts at definition. We were just discussing barn owl "divorce" at Natgeo awhile back. Barn owls mate for life, as do ravens, crows, jays, coyotes, and a thousand other species of bird and mammal. One male and one female mate for life. It's the natural order of things.

Queers want us to believe that they're the natural order of things. They want to browbeat society into being as mentally ill as they are. Mostly though, they want to get their hands on little kids. That's how sick and dangerous the "queer marriage" agenda is. Queers want the great responsibility of raising and nurturing children? What a sick joke. There's only one reason a queer wants to get a little boy under his roof.

Animals in same sex pairings do mate for life and homosexuality has been found in over 1,500 species, including humans.

Again, gays want to be and ARE parents for all the same reasons heterosexuals want to be parents. Our kids are at no disadvantage to yours and even do better in some areas...like tolerance.

Adding that very very very few children of gay couples are unwanted oopsies.

 

[Silhouette]

How does one word (marriage) create or take away gay rights? Which rights does a gay marriage convey that a civil union does not? Please give us a list.

Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library

Change the name to civil unions for all Americans if you don't want gays to use the word marriage. Until then, well fight for equal access to what is already in p

Blind people can't drive. Gay people cannot become husband and wife together. Driving and marriage are both priveleges that people have to prove themselves worthy of before they can attain. Don't feel bad Seawytch. In addition to gay marriage being [still] illegal in California, so is polygamy marriage, marriage of minors and marriage of people in an immediate family blood relation.

Like blood family members, just because they love each other, gays cannot use that to automatically qualify to be married to each other.

 

[Silhouette]

Adding that very very very few children of gay couples are unwanted oopsies.

Oh, they're wanted by gays alright. Just ask Harvey Milk who officiated as "dad" to a couple of his sodomy boy-toys. Hey, isn't Harvey Milk the 'representative of the LGBT community across the nation and the world". It says that in California law anyway...

 

[Skylar]

How does one word (marriage) create or take away gay rights? Which rights does a gay marriage convey that a civil union does not? Please give us a list.

Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library

Change the name to civil unions for all Americans if you don't want gays to use the word marriage. Until then, well fight for equal access to what is already in p

Blind people can't drive. Gay people cannot become husband and wife together. Driving and marriage are both priveleges that people have to prove themselves worthy of before they can attain.

Marriage is a fundamental right. You call it a privileged. The supreme court disagrees.

And your analogy doesn't work, as blind people can't fulfill a fundamental requirement of driving. While gay people can satisfy every requirement of marriage.

Don't feel bad Seawytch. In addition to gay marriage being [still] illegal in California, so is polygamy marriage, marriage of minors and marriage of people in an immediate family blood relation.

Oh, gay marriage is quite legal in California. They perform them here all the time. And the state recognizes each as valid.

As usual, you're inadequately informed.

 

[ShackledNation]

How does one word (marriage) create or take away gay rights? Which rights does a gay marriage convey that a civil union does not? Please give us a list.

Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library

Change the name to civil unions for all Americans if you don't want gays to use the word marriage. Until then, well fight for equal access to what is already in p

Blind people can't drive. Gay people cannot become husband and wife together. Driving and marriage are both priveleges that people have to prove themselves worthy of before they can attain. Don't feel bad Seawytch. In addition to gay marriage being [still] illegal in California, so is polygamy marriage, marriage of minors and marriage of people in an immediate family blood relation.

Like blood family members, just because they love each other, gays cannot use that to automatically qualify to be married to each other.

(1) Under United States law, marriage is a fundamental right, not a privilege.
(2) The government must prove it has a compelling interesting in denying a fundamental right in order to deny it. There is no such interest in denying same-sex marriage.
(3) Same-sex marriage is legal in California, deal with it.

 

[Silhouette]

How does one word (marriage) create or take away gay rights? Which rights does a gay marriage convey that a civil union does not? Please give us a list.

Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library

Change the name to civil unions for all Americans if you don't want gays to use the word marriage. Until then, well fight for equal access to what is already in p

Blind people can't drive. Gay people cannot become husband and wife together. Driving and marriage are both priveleges that people have to prove themselves worthy of before they can attain.

Marriage is a fundamental right. You call it a privileged. The supreme court disagrees.

And your analogy doesn't work, as blind people can't fulfill a fundamental requirement of driving. While gay people can satisfy every requirement of marriage.

Don't feel bad Seawytch. In addition to gay marriage being [still] illegal in California, so is polygamy marriage, marriage of minors and marriage of people in an immediate family blood relation.

Oh, gay marriage is quite legal in California. They perform them here all the time. And the state recognizes each as valid.

As usual, you're inadequately informed.

No, in Windsor the Supreme Court said it's up to each state.

The stay on marriage in Utah means that Prop 8 is valid, at least in the interim. There cannot be separate treatments of majority-rule state by state. One state's democracy cannot be protected while others are left exposed to tyranny.

Prop 8 is law until further notice.

 

[Skylar]

No, in Windsor the Supreme Court said it's up to each state.

Two problems:

1) Windsor doesn't indicate that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Or even address the topic of the constitutionality of such bans.

2) The USSC let stand a federal court ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. And that ruling still stands.

As usual, you simply don't know what you're talking about. And gay marriages continue in California, being completely legal here.

 

[Silhouette]

No, in Windsor the Supreme Court said it's up to each state.

Two problems:

1) Windsor doesn't indicate that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Or even address the topic of the constitutionality of such bans.

2) The USSC let stand a federal court ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. And that ruling still stands.

As usual, you simply don't know what you're talking about. And gay marriages continue in California, being completely legal here.

1. Yes they did when they brought up Loving v Virginia in Windsor and went on to say "as of this writing...gay marriage is only allowed in some states".

2. The USSC made no rendering on the constitutionality of Prop 8 whatsoever. They simply said the plaintiff's on appeal didn't have standing. Then immediately thereafter they Declared Windsor, its twin case. [re-read my #1 here]. Prop 8 is Law-in-interim pending LGBT appeals.

If you want further weight to #2, discover that SCOTUS granted Utah a stay on gay marriage because Utah cited Windsor and said to not do so would irreparably harm their state's democratic process. Upon that argument, SCOTUS granted the stay. Utah's democratic process is the same as California's as far as I know. No state may be legally more protected federally than another. Ergo, Prop 8 is law in the interim.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Animals in same sex pairings do mate for life and homosexuality has been found in over 1,500 species, including humans.

Again, gays want to be and ARE parents for all the same reasons heterosexuals want to be parents. Our kids are at no disadvantage to yours and even do better in some areas...like tolerance.

Bullshit. More sick queer propaganda. Not once in 200 years of the Farmer's Almanac, read by generation after generation of millions of farmers, did "queer" animals ever earn a single line of citation. I own a ranch in Southern Colorado with dozens of critters. In spite of queer academic proselytizing to the contrary, homosexual mental illness doesn't happen in nature, not outside the human species.

Just because some post-doc queer is studying chimpanzee behavior in Kenya, and she sees two male chimps bump their asses together, that doesn't make them queer. Ask the Yerkes Primate Research Center in Atlanta how many buggering chimps they've seen in half a century. Ha! Just because some dog mounts another male and starts dry humping, that doesn't mean the dogs are queer. They dry hump pillows, and sofa cushions, and human legs too. Does that make the pillows and sofa cushions "queer"? It does according to the sick logic driving the queer agenda.

 

[Skylar]

1. Yes they did when they brought up Loving v Virginia in Windsor and went on to say "as of this writing...gay marriage is only allowed in some states".

Then quote the portion of Windsor where they indicate that gay marriage bans are constitutional. I'm looking right at the ruling. You'll find they never address the constitutionality of state gay marriage bans. Or even mention them. Nor do they make any reference to proposition 8.

Worse, in Loving the USSC overruled the State's definition of marriage. Finding it was unconstitutional. Demonstrating unambiguously that the State's role in defining marriage does not allow the State to violate the rights of individuals with unlawful discrimination. Else the Supreme Court could never have overruled interracial marriage bans in the State of Virginia.

Meaning that textually or logically, your assumptions are meaningless flotsam.

2. The USSC made no rendering on the constitutionality of Prop 8 whatsoever. They simply said the plaintiff's on appeal didn't have standing.

But the federal judiciary did rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. And the authority to rule on issues of constitutional significance lies with the federal judiciary. That federal ruling struck down Prop 8. And the USSC allowed that ruling to stand.

Which it does to this day. If you believe otherwise, show us any ruling by any court, anywhere, that says so.

There is none. Just you...and your imagination.

Then immediately thereafter they Declared Windsor, its twin case. [re-read my #1 here].

The Supreme Court declared no such thing. They never mentioned California or Prop 8. In Windsor they ruled that portions of DOMA were unconstitutional. Their ruling was exclusively about the federal law. They didn't rule on the constitutionality of any state law. Or even mention such constitutionality.

Let alone declared Windsor the 'twin case'. Thats you citing yourself, not the courts. And you citing yourself is meaningless, as you're not a legal authority. Nor does your claim make any sense....as Windsor was exclusively about the constitutionality of Federal law. While Perry V. Brown (the case that found Prop 8 unconstitutional) was exclusively about the constitutionality of State law.

There isn't any part of this you got right.

Prop 8 is Law-in-interim pending LGBT appeals.

There are no appeals for prop 8. It was overturned, ruled unconstitutional, and is unenforceable. With the USSC upholding the ruling that made it so. Gay marriages have been performed in the State every working day since.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. And are leaning more heavily on your own imagination as the debate goes by.

 

[Skylar]

Animals in same sex pairings do mate for life and homosexuality has been found in over 1,500 species, including humans.

Again, gays want to be and ARE parents for all the same reasons heterosexuals want to be parents. Our kids are at no disadvantage to yours and even do better in some areas...like tolerance.

Bullshit. More sick queer propaganda. Not once in 200 years of the Farmer's Almanac, read by generation after generation of millions of farmers, did "queer" animals ever earn a single line of citation. I own a ranch in Southern Colorado with dozens of critters. In spite of queer academic proselytizing to the contrary, homosexual mental illness doesn't happen in nature, not outside the human species.

Just because some post-doc queer is studying chimpanzee behavior in Kenya, and she sees two male chimps bump their asses together, that doesn't make them queer. Ask the Yerkes Primate Research Center in Atlanta how many buggering chimps they've seen in half a century. Ha! Just because some dog mounts another male and starts dry humping, that doesn't mean the dogs are queer. They dry hump pillows, and sofa cushions, and human legs too. Does that make the pillows and sofa cushions "queer"? It does according to the sick logic driving the queer agenda.

All of which are completely irrelevant to the issues of gay marriage.

If you're going to deny the fundamental right of marriage to gays and lesbians, you're going to need a good reason. And the number of times the Yerkes Primate Research Center has witnessed Chimps rubbing their asses together isn't a good reason to deny gays and lesbians fundamental rights.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Listen to these borg. Why don't you take your argument to Iran for awhile. I'm tired of listening to creeps babble about their "right" to molest little kids.

 

[Skylar]

Listen to these borg. Why don't you take your argument to Iran for awhile. I'm tired of listening to creeps babble about their "right" to molest little kids.

My argument remains uncontested. You have no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
And without a good reason, you can't deny them fundamental rights.

No one has said a thing about their 'right to molest little kids'. That's you citing your own obsession with pedophilia. We're speaking of the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

Can you provide us with a good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry? Its been 15 years of debate, according to you. Surely you've managed to come up with something.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's called marriage, the contract law that the state affords two equal partners to enter into with the state recognizing their commitment and agreement to abide by the provisions of that contract – same- or opposite sex, it makes no difference.


This is why there's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' 'civil unions' or 'legal partnerships' – just marriage, one law for everyone willing and qualified to participate.

 

[Skylar]

We're dealing with nothing but red herrings at this point, Clayton. With the argument against gay marriage having been reduced to how many times chimps have rubbed their asses together.

Which is pretty much where defense of gay marriage bans always ends up. I supported gay marriage bans back in 2008. But slowly changed my position, largely on how hard it was to defend the bans and how little evidence supported such arguments.

It dawned on me one day.....if the argument supporting gay marriage bans is that logically indefensible, why are you trying to defend it? That and attending a gay marriage...where the grooms obviously loved each other as much as any married couple I'd ever seen....swayed me toward supporting the legality of such unions.

Its also how I know exactly where the weaknesses in the gay marriage ban argument are. As I've polished that turd.

 

[Silhouette]

Animals in same sex pairings do mate for life and homosexuality has been found in over 1,500 species, including humans.

Again, gays want to be and ARE parents for all the same reasons heterosexuals want to be parents. Our kids are at no disadvantage to yours and even do better in some areas...like tolerance.

Bullshit. More sick queer propaganda. Not once in 200 years of the Farmer's Almanac, read by generation after generation of millions of farmers, did "queer" animals ever earn a single line of citation. I own a ranch in Southern Colorado with dozens of critters. In spite of queer academic proselytizing to the contrary, homosexual mental illness doesn't happen in nature, not outside the human species.

Just because some post-doc queer is studying chimpanzee behavior in Kenya, and she sees two male chimps bump their asses together, that doesn't make them queer. Ask the Yerkes Primate Research Center in Atlanta how many buggering chimps they've seen in half a century. Ha! Just because some dog mounts another male and starts dry humping, that doesn't mean the dogs are queer. They dry hump pillows, and sofa cushions, and human legs too. Does that make the pillows and sofa cushions "queer"? It does according to the sick logic driving the queer agenda.

I've seen instances of homosexual behavior in captive animals [livestock]. And always its from an artificial frustration or even training [in the case where bulls are mounted on steers to collect semen]. It's ARTIFICALLY-ACQUIRED. It is not a natural occurance.

A state has a right to promote natural parents over artificial ones. Marriage is the majority's perogative to define in order to sculpt future generations as the majority wishes its discreet community to be. That's called democracy. If you don't like it, move to Red China and convince leadership there to make homosexuality mandatory in their culture. They'd probably welcome it since they are overpopulated anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

Bullshit. More sick queer propaganda. Not once in 200 years of the Farmer's Almanac, read by generation after generation of millions of farmers, did "queer" animals ever earn a single line of citation. I own a ranch in Southern Colorado with dozens of critters. In spite of queer academic proselytizing to the contrary, homosexual mental illness doesn't happen in nature, not outside the human species.

Just because some post-doc queer is studying chimpanzee behavior in Kenya, and she sees two male chimps bump their asses together, that doesn't make them queer. Ask the Yerkes Primate Research Center in Atlanta how many buggering chimps they've seen in half a century. Ha! Just because some dog mounts another male and starts dry humping, that doesn't mean the dogs are queer. They dry hump pillows, and sofa cushions, and human legs too. Does that make the pillows and sofa cushions "queer"? It does according to the sick logic driving the queer agenda.

Ah, so "farm boy" ain't never seen it so it can't be!!!

Yale Scientific Magazine 8211 Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality

Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world.

 

[Silhouette]

Listen to these borg. Why don't you take your argument to Iran for awhile. I'm tired of listening to creeps babble about their "right" to molest little kids.

My argument remains uncontested. You have no good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
And without a good reason, you can't deny them fundamental rights.

No one has said a thing about their 'right to molest little kids'. That's you citing your own obsession with pedophilia. We're speaking of the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

Can you provide us with a good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry? Its been 15 years of debate, according to you. Surely you've managed to come up with something.

Witness "good reason". The only people in Utah allowed to adopt are married people....Do the math....

Do these people who do these acts in public, sober, as a matter of pride, hoping kids will be looking on, qualify to adopt? No, of course not. And so, in Utah, they don't qualify to marry therefore.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do these people who do these acts in public, sober, as a matter of pride, hoping kids will be looking on, qualify to adopt? No, of course not. And so, in Utah, they don't qualify to marry therefore.


This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

 

[Redfish]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

neat! this doesnt hold up as a legit argument.

Its as legit as yours and wytch's. Are we allowed to have different opinions and beliefs in the Libtardian States of America? Or are our thoughts and beliefs to be dictated by the all-knowing federal government?

THAT is what this is really about.

you can have whatever opinion you like little guy, that doesn't make it legit or very good when it comes to actual law.

Since there is no federal law on this topic, your post just verifies your ignorance.